Wed, 28 Feb 2007

In an AP article, we are informed that Hillary Clinton is going to
take $60 BILLION dollars from "big oil", and then spend it on
"clean-energy research and development." Where does she think "big
oil" gets its money from? What is "big oil" going to do when its
costs increase by $60 BILLION dollars? Does she think there are going
to be no negative effects on the American public?

Obviously, she is appealing to the greed of the American public.
"These are the kinds of things that I will do if you vote for me for
President."

I'd love to know where they found a free market to have
faith in. I've never seen one that wasn't structured, biased or
otherwise guaranteed by governmental or corporate
structures.

Unfortunately, this idea exhibits a profound lack of understanding
of economics. Jeremy isn't the only person to make this claim. A
quick Google search for "no such thing as a free market" finds this and this
and this which
agree 100% with Jeremy, and are equally wrong. Economists rarely
study anything by itself. Economics isn't the study of one thing; it
is the study of one thing versus another. Economists try to figure
out what you'll give up of one thing in order to get another, and
why.

There's no point to objecting to advocacy for free markets by
pointing out there is no pure free market, free of any coercive
influence. We can compare more-free markets to less free markets, and
decide which ones we like. If we like more-free markets, then we
advocate for free markets, all the while realizing that the people who
like less free markets will prevent us from having a completely free
market.

Sat, 10 Feb 2007

I will tell you why I have blind faith in free trade. It's because
any alternative to free trade requires coercion. Coercion requires
threats and acts of violence. I am a pacifist. I believe that all violence
which is not directly engaged in reducing even worse violence
(that is, I believe that a police are necessary) is evil, and counter
to God's will. I think that violence is the worst injustice. Thus, I
think that violence cannot be used to counter injustice. Thus, I am
philosophically opposed to most laws which interfere with trade,
e.g. a minimum wage law.

You can see that my faith isn't so blind as some would say.
There's a train of logic which only requires one assumption: that
violence is the worst injustice. I would say instead that some people
close their eyes when it comes to regulations.

Thu, 08 Feb 2007

Matt Yglesias writes a somewhat confused blog posting about "The
Trouble With Contracting." He opines that governments are less
efficient than the private sector. He lays the blame on just one
aspect of the private sector: that badly run companies go out of
business. Then he notes that when governments buy their services
through badly run companies, they don't necessarily go out of
business.

He is totally missing the reason why badly run companies go out of
business. They fail because other companies out-compete them.
Competition is what you get when multiple vendors try to cooperate
with the customer more than anyone else.

If, as Matt suggests, companies are not chosen to maximize
cooperation, then buying services through contractors is not likely to
be any more efficient. He's quite right even though he doesn't
understand why he's right.

But the real problem is not whether governments hire employees, or
hire contractors. The real problem is when governments hire anybody.
Governments don't have the flexibility to provide many different
levels of service to different groups.

Compare, for example, restaurants to schools. Restaurants are
subject to very little government control. They have to find an
acceptable location if the community restricts business locations via
zoning. They have to maintain certain standards of cleanliness and
food preparation. Other than that, they can sell anything anytime
anywhere in any quantity and combination to any customers. Schools
have one curriculum for all students in a single grade. All students
are expected to learn all material at the same rate at the same age at
the same time of day. A tiny bit of flexibility is provided for
special education students -- but even then the goal would be for them
to learn the standard curriculum (aka mainstreaming).

School choice will have very little affect on any of this (or so I
predict). "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Initially parents
will be able to choose from a substantial range of schooling. Over
time, taxpayers will rebel against, say, pagan schooling, or math-only
schooling, or athletic schooling, and more and more restrictions will
be placed on them.

That, in a nutshell, is the case against government provision of
services. The private sector might be more efficient, but efficiency
isn't really the goal. The goal is for everyone to get what they
want, not for everyone to get what everyone wants. A free market
provides the first; governments provide the second.

From time to time you will see people accuse free marketeers of
"marketolatry". You'll see one here.
The implication of that term is to say that we are worse than
ideologues: that we worship free markets as our God. Thanks, no, I
already have a God; don't need one so imperfect as markets, free or
otherwise.

The problem with this accusation is it implies that we wouldn't
change our minds in the face of contrary facts. The speaker usually
believes that they have irrefutable contrary facts. Since we aren't
convinced by their facts, we must be ideologues, or worse,
marketolatrators.